Talk:Business simulation game

Harvest Moon?
Are you sure that Harvest Moon is an Economic Simulation game? For one thing, you control one character and walk around the world dating girls and talking with people. You do CONTROL one unit! That defies the definition postulated in this article. In fact, the entire game quite different from Mall Tycoon where you maniplate the world through finances with a god-like view. --71.107.224.152 23:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know the Name of the Below Game?
Hi, I am looking to pick uo a game I played a lot when I was younger, Picked Up Capitalsm 2 by mistake thinking that was it but it wasn't (was well pleased with it though).

The Game I am looking for was a Bisuness Simulation game that was released mid to late 90's, You set up a company and made either Games Consoles or Mobile phones (may have been a third option) You chose the components etc, signed up games and took care of advertisement then launched your in up to 4 regions (Europe, America, Japan and the Internet shopping). You Had to manage everything from production amounts to employing a secretary and PR manager for Each regione etc and would give you an overview of each region letting you view the factory floor or shop floor for each region (was very baic mind). If anyone thinks they know what this game may be please let me know So I can look it up possibly purchase it again (if anywhere still sells it?!?!?)

Thanks

ya i remember it to and i think its just an earlier version of capitalism. was also like cars or computers or airplanes or something ? and there was like 5 building types.


 * Sounds like the Entrepreneur/Corporate Machine series from Stardock. Lando242 19:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Giant Wad of Links
This article has a ton of links to games in it. I really don't think this is necessary to describe what an economic simulation game is and definitely in need of a cleanup. Three common examples would do much more nicely. (Darthveda (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:BTMOnlineScreenShot.png
Image:BTMOnlineScreenShot.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CapitalismPlusScreenshot.jpg
Image:CapitalismPlusScreenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

List and its wording
Not only is the list getting too long and bloated (There are 5 airline company simulators listed, as well as basically every game that has "tycoon" in its title, and Zoo Tycoon is mentioned twice), but the wording on some of them seems to be ripped straight out of advertising inserts. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Trade Wars
You should really mention Trade Wars. It was pretty popular on BBSs back in the day. SharkD (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe. It's definitely a classic. Was it some kind of strategy game? Some kind of simulation game? The problem is, as you'll see even from the Trade Wars article, there's not a lot of research out there about the game. If it had been a huge internet game, there would probably be a ton of references. But because it hit its peak in the BBS era, we'd probably have to dig through magazines to know what reviewers said about it, let alone where they fit it in genre-wise. It's an article that could really use a lot of attention. Randomran (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a multiplayer strategy/sim. Naturally, empire micromanagement took on a greater role in the latter stages of the game. It's comparable to EVE: Online. SharkD (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I definitely remember it. Couldn't find anything in reliable secondary sources though. Virtually nothing. Randomran (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Tycoon games
I suggest merging this list into the chronology since they cover mostly the same topic. SharkD (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd support that. But that's a discussion that should probably take place at at least one of those articles, shouldn't it? Randomran (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Section
I deleted the following section: "One interesting aspect of economic simulations in education is the problem of ethics or morality. Should students be instructed to behave ethically within the game, or should they focus their efforts on streamlining tasks related to running the business? The quandary, here, lies in that such efforts can be, at times, at cross-purposes with each other."

This section appears to violate the WP:AWW and WP:NPOV policies. Also, the source which is cited for this section does not discuss the ethical or moral issues inherent in a business simulation (contrary to what this sections text implies), only how that particular medium can best illustrate the intended lesson. Rather, it suggests ways to design an educational game which properly conveys the intended lesson, whatever that might be. e.g., how to design the goals in a business simulation so that the "winner" is the player who makes the most environmentally-friendly choices. An equally valid example would be: how to design the goals in a business simulation so that the "winner" is the player who makes the most money. Monolith2 (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "So if we allow the players to play the game to maximize their income we incite them to learn how to run a business, however by including ethical considerations as learning goals we can evaluate them on the basis of morals, which may be counterproductive." The point here is that playing well and being moral may be at cross-purposes with each other. SharkD (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The entire section that quote is taken from reads as follows: "Example: Consider that we want to run a economic simulation where doing well is not equal to being a moral player. So if we allow the players to play the game to maximize their income we incite them to learn how to run a business, however by including ethical considerations as learning goals we can evaluate them on the basis of morals, which may be counterproductive. The example at the end will illustrate this."

The "point" is NOT that "playing well and being moral may be at cross-purposes with each other." The first sentence of that passage, which you omitted from quote, begins with the assumption that the game designer purposely wants to introduce some moral ambiguity into the game. Further, the chapter from which that example is taken speaks entirely about a player's motivation and how best to tailor the learning objective to those motivations, it does not make any claims as to how morally correct or incorrect a business simulation game is. In fact, it specifically uses broad language that could apply to any learning objective, whether a moral lesson or not. The example you quoted is just that: an example; not a statement of purpose. Monolith2 (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's an example for educators. But the statement is accompanied by a qualifying statement to the point that the introduction of morals into a game may be at odds with acquiring profit. This is an opinion or analysis on the author's part. I.e. he/she is instructing readers that if they want to create a game where doing well is not equal to being a moral player, then one thing they can do is introduce ethical considerations. Further, the introduction of ethical considerations is an invention of the author, and not obtained elsewhere. If you disagree with the author that's another issue. SharkD (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so we agree that this section is used by the author as an example. Where we disagree, it seems, is in interpreting the example as having a point other than to illustrate that business simulations have the ability to implement a goal which runs counter to "making the most money."

As the source itself uses very general terms to describe it's topic, only getting into specifics when an example is necessary, I think it would be disingenuous to elevate the authors example to anything more than an example. If the author had used an example of a farm which wishes to "make the most money" but also keep standards high enough to maintain it's "organic" certification, would we then say that the point of the article was to illustrate how "making the most money" is at odds with "organic farming"?

I feel that the author intentionally uses broad language outside of his examples specifically to illustrate the adaptability of business simulations to any educational purpose. You said it pretty well with "the introduction of ethical considerations is an invention of the author, and not obtained elsewhere." If they're an invention of the author, not backed up by the general thesis of the article, not supported in any other literature, and (as I interpret) not even used to make a point, but to illustrate a concept -- then why is the Wikipedia article citing the article as a source for the "problem" of morality vs. business success? Monolith2 (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is about 'a video game genre'. Should not be the case
Business simulation games is a term that is largely used in business schools to refer to all the simulation games that are used to educate people in business, economic, finance, etc ... It is more like a sub-part of serious game. Nabeth (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why this article is on business simulation games, rather than business simulations. Randomran (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * but this is an abuse of defining a term in a way that is less used than in another context. Maybe we should put here a page "disambiguation" here. Example of serious publication in the domain: The journal: Business simulation & gaming: Nabeth (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is already a disambiguation at the top. No need for anything further. It's quite clear and explicit Mycroft (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this was a little bit confusing to me. I added a CR to make this more explict. Thanks. Nabeth (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I now see the point of your most recent edit, I apologise if my revert looks aggressive. I am of the personal belief that the line is explicit enough as it is, without the line break, but will happily wait for consensus from the other guys that watch this page. Regards. Mycroft (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. All right for me. I apologise for the multiple edit. I did not have the time to finalise my edit before it was removed. Nabeth (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My suggestion: To move 'This article is about a video game genre' in a separate line (just before maybe), since this seems to be an accepted practice in Wikipedia to indicate in the disambiguation only reference to the other possible terms. Nabeth (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the current wording is sufficient. As for "accepted practice", I have to disagree with this as well. This article uses a template to generate the text, and this template is used in an identical fashion in hundreds of other articles on Wikipedia. SharkD (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * see also Talk:Simulations and_games in economics education (or the need for some clarification). Nabeth (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * more About Disambiguation: Wikipedia has a page for this at Disambiguation. For instance in one of the case they indicate the term Rice. I find this practice less biais (sorry all this is about how perception, and I find the approach used for the term Rice to appear more neutral). Nabeth (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's what the disambiguation stuff is for. Randomran (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Simunomics
Has anmyone ever heard of Simunomics? I'm not advertising it, I'm just wondering, it's a semi new business simulation game that came out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ackbeennon/Simunomics_Game

http://simunomics.com

http://simunomics.forums.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackbeennon (talk • contribs) 12:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

History Section is Lacking
Since June 2008, the History section required expansion. Nearly 7.5 years later, the history section is still lacking. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)